Are you reading Homeric Greek or studying Homeric Greek with Pharr's Homeric Greek - A Book For Beginners? Here's where you can meet other Homeric Greek learners. Use this board for all things Homeric Greek.

A) I'm not sure if I'm taking this in the right way, but could be this a common combination of the imperfect with the aorist? First appears an imperfect which refers to an indefinite group of events, and then the next aorists enumerate these actions in more detail.

D) Which is the implicit antecedent of ἥν? I would expect that πήματα (referred at 100 by Telemachus), but then the relative pronoun should be neuter. All the synonyms that I could recollect are also neuter: ἄχεα, ἄλγεα, πένθεα, κῆδεα.

128. ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα θυμὸν ἔχοντε νόω καὶ ἐπίφρονι βουλῇ

E) How should I take νόω here?

139. οἱ ἦλθον οἴνῳ βεβαρηότες υἷες Ἀχαιῶν,

F) Should I take βεβαρηότες as passive? According to LSG, βαρέω = weigh down; and they are weighed down by the wine, so I would expect a passive form.

G) The infinitive ῥέξαι here is a little ambiguous, isn't it? It is not clear if should be taken with ἐρύκω (hinder from doing the hecatombs), or if it is an infinitive of purpose (hinder [from depart], to do the hecatombs).

I) I missed something here, I had thought that Agamemnon was who wants to stay to do the hecatombs, but here it is said that Odysseus and his comrades departed "αὖτις ἐπ᾽Ἀγαμέμνονι ἦρα φέροντες". And he says "αὖτις", which was the first time?

L) I haven't other instances of this, but I thought that may be the imperfect ἀπηύρα is used here because it is referring to an action that doesn't take place (at any moment) and then is considered as stative, in contraposition with an action that actually occurred (φύγον) (at a puntual moment).

N) Merry says that τρίς is here equivalent to τρία. I don't know if it is common to use thus an adverb as a cardinal, but I wonder if I could take τρίς as the adverb it is, because γένεα = a generation of men (30 years?), and then we can say that he ruled over a generation of men three times (90 years?).

Q) But I think that σπέρχω could be taken here in it's active meaning, "to put in rapid motion", being νῆα the implicit object: "whenever the whirlwinds put [the ships] in rapid motion". Do you see any problem with this?

295. ἔνθα Νότος μέγα κῦμα ποτὶ σκαιὸν ῥίον ὠθεῖ,

R) Is σκαιός used by Homer with it's metaphorical meaning "unlucky"? I am not sure if I should read here "the unlucky crag" (because it was struck over and over again by the waves), or just "the western rock", if this has any sense.

W) How would you explain that Telemachus ascends the chariot in the aorist, but the son of Nestor does it in the imperfect?

And here are the forms that I couldn't explain:

15. ἐπέπλως => ἐπέπλευσας (if it were a second aorist alternative to ἐπέπλευσα, then why it ends in ως instead of ες? I have thought that maybe this is a mixed aorist and ως is the contraction for οας, but I'm not sure.)

57. υἱάσι => υἱέσι / ὑιοῖσι

109. ἀρήιος => ἀρείος

232. κεράασθε => κερᾶσθε (contracted from κεράεσθε)

250. ἀρείω => ἀρείονα

420. δαῖτα => δαίτην (appears modified by θάλειαν, so I would expect a femenine accussative noun).

444. εἶχε => ἔχε (I would say that εἶ is the contraction for ἐέ, which is the augment of verb beginning with the digamma, but I checked in Cunliffe and ἔχω hasn't the stem in digamma.)

A. Their coming into shore (katagonto) was a gradual process, and then we get a series of punctual actions, which we are grammatically free to take as executed while they were coming to shore but much more likely subsequent to it. We have a succession: they come into land (bit by bit), and it’s only when they hit the beach that they furl the sails, moor the boat, and disembark.B. Yes that’s right. This aorist, active in form, is used by Homer as if it were passive, here and elsewhere.C. Athene led off, and Telemachus proceeded to follow her. It’s a common sequence, as is the reverse (your A).D. It has an expressed antecedent, in fact, oizuos (gen of oizus). Lit. “Since you reminded me of the misery which …”E. Shouldn’t it have an iota subscript? nowi dative of noos, in tandem with epifroni boulhi. F. Right. This perfect participle is intransitive in Homer, used as if it were passive.G. It’s a second infin governed by bouleto, NB the postpositive te “and”, putting the two infinitive phrases in parallel. rejai is the standard verb for hecatombs (i.e. sacrifice).H. Yes that’s the sense but iemenoi doesn’t need an infinitive, can stand perfectly well with directional adverbs. “eager for home,” "hastening homewards"I. autis can mean “back” (to where they’d come from), but its position does suggest it’s to be taken with the participial phrase. autis needn’t imply that he had done Ag a favor the first time; rather it means that this time around he did, in deciding to go back and stay with Ag after all. Or that’s how I’d take it. Approximates to First he sailed off, then in turn (autis) he sailed back again (autis) (as Ag would have wanted), two successive actions, and a reversal to boot.J. Split it into two (as the accents indicate), o + dh. o (neut. sing. rel. pronoun, technically) is tantamount to oti “that” (introducing indirect statement), and dh gives it punch. K. No, the ship’s bow “cuts”, “cleaves” the ocean. temnein ghn is to plow; the ship as it were plows the deep.L. Homer seems to use this as if it were aorist, not imperfect (which in form it should be). It’s an odd verb.M. The first kai is laying stress on paida, “an actual son,” “a son too” (in addition to whatever else may be left). (lipesqai, though properly middle, is apparently used as passive, as sometimes happens, cf. the identicality in the present.) The second is fairly similar: “in fact Orestes”, “Orestes too” (exemplificatory of what a slain man’s son can do). These are overtranslations, of course.N. Yes I think this is on the right lines. It’s slightly muddied by the fact that gene(a) is plural, but the singular would imply that he was three times king of a single generation.O. The idea of simultaneity is conveyed more by the matching imperfects than by men/de, which simply oppose what we were doing with what he was doing (“at the time” is understood rather than expressed). We might use “while” (better with the de clause than with the men: “There were we, …, while he …), but Homer is characteristically paratactic.

I’ll have to leave it there for now. I may continue later, unless Qimmik picks it up from here. There’s no need for me with him here. You’re asking excellent questions, paying attention to just the right things.

V. The rule (I had to look this up) is that monosyllabic prepositions beginning with a vowel retain their accent when they follow their complement only at verse-end or before punctuation. P. Probert, A New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek (Bristol Classical Press 2003), p. 127, sec. 257.

W. "How would you explain that Telemachus ascends the chariot in the aorist, but the son of Nestor does it in the imperfect?" The focus shifts from the event--Telemachus gets on the chariot--to the process--Pisistratus is getting on, taking the reins--and then back to the event--he whipped the horses.

15. ἐπέπλως -- this is a fossilized "athematic" second aorist that would be conjugated like ἔγνων if there were other forms. The -ς is added directly to the aorist stem -πλω-, without the "thematic" vowel -ε-.

57. υἱάσι - this is a 3rd declension form. It can be explained by historical linguistics (the -ά- is the reflex of syllabic ν). In general, the Greeks couldn't make up their minds whether υἱός was a second or third declension word, and there is a luxuriant proliferation of forms in various dialects, as the LSJ entry attests:

109. Ἀρήϊος and Ἄρειος (proparoxytone) are alternative forms with different metrical shapes--convenient for oral composition.

332. κεράασθε is one of those forms that developed in the epic language after contraction occurred (κεράεσθε > κερᾶσθε) in order to preserve the metrical shape of the original word in formulaic expressions. The contraction wasn't simply reversed, perhaps because the aoidoi weren't aware that the contraction had occurred. Instead, the contracted α was extended back for one short syllable to replace the short syllable preceding the long syllable in the uncontracted form. There are many forms like this in the epic language, which was an artificial language that no one ever spoke and which evolved exclusively as the medium for hexameter verse.

A footnote on V (Od.3.455). The της is not directly (or at all, even) dependent on the εκ. The intervening δ’ επει precludes that. The εκ belongs more with the verb, and is best regarded as adverbial. Some would refer to εκ … ρυη as an instance of tmesis (prepositional prefix separated from its verb), but in Homer it’s anachronistic to think of it as a divided compound. The εκ functions more as an independent adverb. Out the blood flowed, it flowed out from her.

PS. Smyth 1638b insists that even in βλεφαρων απο δακρυα πιπτει, where απο directly follows the genitive, βλεφαρων is not governed by the απο. (He renders this word-by-word as “from her eyelids, away, tears fall”—but of course it’s not until we reach απο that we know what the function of the genitive is, “from” her eyelids.)

Actually the fronted της (and maybe the εκ too, along with the επει) should probably be regarded as common to both clauses. Her blood, her thumos. But the genitive will be more separative (ablatival) than possessive (true gen.).

Yes, I've seen in LSJ that it could take just an accusative, but then I was expecting οἶκον instead of οἴκαδε (for that reason I thought that maybe νέεσθαι was somehow implicit).

Qimmik wrote:444. εἶχε is the regular imperfect, this time with augment.

But it begins with a vowel, and takes the syllabic augment instead of the temporal one. I understand that some verbs beginning with a vowel take the syllabic augment owing to it's having formerly began with the digamma, but in LSJ I don't see that this verb has had the digamma.

Some verbs beginning with a vowel take the syllabic augment because they formerly began with a consonant. Thus, . . . ἔχω hold (σεχω), εἶχον.

In other words, the original form of the imperfect would have been *ἔ-σεχ-ον. The σ dropped out, leaving *ἔ-εχ-ον, and the sequence ἔ-ε was contracted to εἶ-.

An original σ- at the beginning of a word has usually been replaced by a rough breathing in Attic Greek and in the texts of the Homeric poems. In the conjugation of ἔχω, the present has a smooth breathing, but one form of the future is ἕξω, from *σεχ-σω. The other is σχ-ή-σω. (These usually appear in compound verbs and in the middle voice.) The aorist is ἔ-σχ-ον.

In the aorist ἔ-σχ-ον, the vowel of the root is reduced to zero; you can read about this phenomenon (vowel gradation) in Smyth 476-7 if you're interested. You may find this too much or too confusing for you at this stage, but even a cursory understanding of these processes could be helpful in making some of the apparent irregularities of Greek (and especially Homeric Greek) more transparent:

Note the clues in fut. ἕξ- (rough breathing) and aor. σχ- (cf. e.g. ἕπομαι~sequor w/ aor. σπ-); and there are various other indications. Doesn't have to be specifically digamma to produce syllabic augment.

The weakening of /s/ to /h/ occurs in some varieties of Carribean Spanish (e.g., Puerto Rican), if I'm not mistaken. And in French /s/ has completely dropped out in many contexts -- for example, école from *escole, from Latin schola, château from Latin castellum, etc. A process very similar to the process that happened in these Romance languages (or, in the case of Spanish, a process that is currently at work) occurred in Greek at a prehistoric stage of the language.

In the aorist ἔ-σχ-ον, the vowel of the root is reduced to zero; you can read about this phenomenon (vowel gradation) in Smyth 476-7 if you're interested. You may find this too much or too confusing for you at this stage, but even a cursory understanding of these processes could be helpful in making some of the apparent irregularities of Greek (and especially Homeric Greek) more transparent:

I didn't quite understand what Smyth says about strong and weak grades, maybe I need some background of historical linguistics to understand it, which I have not really. I've curiosity though, and maybe such background would be helpful not only in understanding Homer's apparent irregularities, but also to guess new vocabulary and to get into other dialects later. And right, it can be also that this confuse me even more By the moment I I've just found this document with a compendium of Ancient Greek phonology, if interest somebody: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/docs/CompPhon.pdf